INTRO: At minimum half of this post will be about proving how credible and reliable or trustworthy the historical records of the macedonians/greek's are.
=
First i must prove why greek sources can be used & should be considered authentic/genuine for the topic of this post.
1st reason they are genuine - the greek and roman historians claim Alexander did things they disagree with, it is described in great detail that Alexander did an atrocity like the burning of Persepolis which was considered a mistake (bad move) by his own fans and sycophants. Many of these historians had the courage to speak against alexander and claim they dont agree with him because they wrote their articles and accounts after he died, since alexander isn't alive their was no need to fear alexander or lie to gain a favor/award from him.
Examples of such deed's are Alexander murdering Parmenion, Attalus, Cleitus. Also Alexander killing his older cousin "Amyntas IV" so clearly Alexander was not always seen as the good guy even by the citizens he ruled over. Im sure that this information would have been altered if westerners had their own AGENDA to push, cause it doesnt look like someone who killed their baby brother, their older innocent cousin, or their father's other wives should be seen as a "great" soul.
2nd reason is: Because these writers admit many disgusting realities of being in a royal family, that internal marriages were common like uncle wedding niece, cousins marrying cousin's etc, and the fact Alexander's father Philip disliked him. If the author's wanted to lie to save the face of their hero alexander then they could have chosen to rewrite history and make it seem like his father valued him or held alexander in a positive light.
But instead they stick to the truth and admit that even alexander's relatives had multiple flaw's & that he had a negative relationship with them.
This's evidence from a greek source that Alexander did not like his own father cause he felt he was getting in the way of his own success & attempt of making a name for himself.
1st;
"There were indeed periods of intense strain and conflict between Alexander and Philip that led to situations which could be perceived as a form of exile or estrangement."
2nd;
Another one admits a weakness/flaw of Alexander;
[quotE]
"Alexander, although strong testimony against Philotas came to his ears, endured in silence and restrained himself, either because he had confidence in Parmenio's good will towards him, or because he feared the reputation and power of father and son."
Note; the historian wrote how a possibility existed of alexander fearing the father-son duo that worked under him as military leaders. The name of Parmenion has been miswritten as 'Parmenio' by the way but its just a casual error, it does not make the source any less reliable.
=
They also admitted that Alexander was injured by a nameless enemy in the Mallian Campaign, if they wanted alexander to be seen as a DEVTA/GOD they would not have said that, rather to make alexander seem more impressive and tough they could say that one hundred men together were the reason behind his injury, or that a tough king like Porus/Dhananand was the one that injured alexander instead.
3rd reason is that historian's admit Alexanders older brother Arrhidaeus had many learning disabilities, surely in order to maintain a good image such a defect in a royal prince would have been kept secret and not become public information available to every citizen of Greece right? They would not admit he was mentally hampered and a liability to his family members. Such a flaw could be misused to always insult macedon's people that their ruler is the brother of a mentally impaired man.
The foreign historians (anyone that isn't indian/russian) admit and accept facts like the indos province was the most populous/rich province of the Persian Empire:
"The Indians made up the twentieth province. These are more in number than any nation known to me, and they paid a greater tribute than any other province, namely three hundred and sixty talents of gold dust."
{ending}
So India was praised by persian's, greeks and romans too, we know more of ancient india mainly due to accounts/record's kept & stored safely by non indian's.
=
4TH;
If they lied about Chandragupta's statement then Plutarch and others could have spread many other lies what was the need to inform greeks that alexanders army was tired after just fighting porus? The tired army still fought against the Mallavas (in the Gedrosian desert) despite their homesick illness, this contradiction would make sense only if it was a realistic account of events as it mirrors what happens in real life that though u are tired u will still choose to put in effort as it was the only way those soldier's could make it back home otherwise the mallian's could murder them.
Example of a believable rumor that Macedonian's could have spread but choose not too is:
"Alexander defeated the nanda empire & was the reason why the 7 brothers of Dhananand got killed after that he coronated prince Dhananand into king Dhananand the ruler of Magadh, because dhananand helped him conquer magadh, the reason dhananand betrayed his country was cause he desired the throne of magadh its former ruler was his oldest brother. Now that alexander died in babylon this indian king Dhananand has decided to rebel against greek reign"
And this would have a high chance of being believed by many ignorant citizens. Because the Greeks were involved in a civil war, so they had a excuse to not attack magadh or usurp Dhananand. Also cause nothing is written in india regarding the 7 nanda chiefs that were in between Dhananand & Mahapadma (their were seven other monarchs besides them) even indian historians would not be able to dispute the claim of Macedonians that alexander killed the nameless brothers of dhananand.
So then why would the greeks (IF THEY ARE DISHONEST) not choose to create a similar propaganda story/hoax to make Alexander seem even more impressive? Im sure the answer is not because a young man like me is more cunning when it comes to spreading rumors than they are.
=
FIFTH/FINAL REASON.
They gave indian states (which i believe just had their own independent identity and did not identify as india ever) enough praise to the point where Taxila (Gandhar) was considered a equal of Egypt.
Quote:
"Taxiles, we are told, had a realm in India as large as Egypt, with good pasturage, too, and in the highest degree productive of beautiful fruits. He was also a wise man in his way, and after he had greeted Alexander, said."
Logic - but local indians, deshbhakts, patriots and other obsessed/biased individuals refuse to consider king Omphis's nation (taxila) to be a metropolis or praise it at all, some downplay and underrate his power/luxury and state he was a weak king (just cause he did ot believe in akhand bharat varsh or choose to fight alexander).
Greek historians claimed that Heracles could not win over a fortress which housed normal dark skinned human beings from Afghanistan.
Quote;
"Alexander's desire to outdo his kinsman Heracles, who allegedly had proved unable to take a fort that the Macedonians called Ἄορνος Aornos."
[End]
Logic - if they can show a god failing to win a conflict and admit such a incident what makes the indians doubt greek honesty & integrity? Alexander had inferior status compared to Heracles.
They admitted Alexander's horse died;
"Of these cities, he named one Bucephalia, after Bucephalas, the horse which fell during the battle with Porus (he was an excellent war-horse and was always used by Alexander in his fights) and he called the other Nicaea, after his victory."
Note - u know it is embarrassing for a cavalry rider/man if their horse died even if its in the battlefield right? So why not rewrite this part of history too?
6th - These biased greek author's & historians were the same people who famously wrote that Alexander murdered "Cleitus The Black" in cold blood cause of a argument. That Cleitus was the guy that saved Alexander's life twice. So its clearly a embarrassing crime committed by Alex, so how can we accuse these people of bias if they admit such a thing?
FINAL CONCLUSION;
The claim of "these historians being dishonest" is a false accusation in my viewpoint. Yes it is possible that greek writers could be victims of ignorance or MISUNDERSTANDINGS but in my opinion they would say what they believe is true/correct/right most of the time.
I think i do not need to provide more points regarding whether the Greeks were genuine or not. Only the spartan historians/authors can be discredited but the people who wrote alexander's history were not spartan, they were macedonian, roman, greek etc.
=
NOW I CAN COME TO WHY THE NANDAS ARE NOT A REAL THREAT FOR ALEXANDER & WHY HE CAN DEFEAT ALL NANDA RULER'S.
1st reason is:
According to plutarch the famed Chandragupta basically admitted that Alexander could conquer the Nanda empire.
Quote;
"Sandrocottos [Candragupta] himself, who was then but a youth, saw Alexander and afterwards used to declare that Alexander could easily have taken possession of the whole country, since the king [i.e. one of the Nanda kings of the Gangetic valley] was hated and despised by his subjects for the wickedness of his disposition and the meanness of his origin."
So most likely the account which mentions that Chandragupta believed Alexander would have beaten Dhananand is a genuine statement and not a fake cooked up story by Plutarch. Because i have provided many reasons for why the greek records are reliable and genuine above before i quoted Plutarch's claim surrounding chandragupta's opinion.
But of course just one king saying Alexander will win is not enough, so i will provide other reasons on why Alexander should win.
2ND REASON.
The pro nanda empire fans (or maybe just haters of alexander) have basically 2 points, one is the numerical advantage (how the Nanda Army is bigger) and the other is the whole hype surrounding elephantine units.
In this part i will address the comment about elephants only and then in my reason 3 part i will talk about why the population difference does not matter when it comes to army's fighting eachother.
Alexander led armies to victory against those army's which also had presence of elephant's before like the persian empire used indian war elephants against alexander but failed obviously, so did porus have 200 elephants and he failed too.
Since most indians will deny porus's defeat i will have to highlight the persian army instead, its mentioned in this passage of text that they had fifteen elephants.
"He also had 15 Indian elephants supported by Indian chariots."
[End]
Now of course that is a tiny number in comparison to the nandas, i agree with such a counterargument, but it does not change the fact that elephants are not a new thing that alexander had to deal with, so a intimidation factor does not exist here.
Decades after he died Alexander's comrades and generals were involved in a civil war, one called Selucus was able to defeat a contingent of war elephants used against him by Antigonus.
Alexander also had access to war elephants:
Quote.
"Substantial loot was gained, with 4,000 talents captured, the King's personal chariot and bow and the war elephants. It was a disastrous defeat for the Persians and one of Alexander's finest victories."
IF elephants are a true issue then he can train and utilize those same creatures of his own, its possible he could garner support of more elephants than the amount which existed in the Nanda Empire. Keep in mind alexander died before the roman empire was created & cause of the roman empire many animal species became extinct, so during alexander's era the Barbary Lion existed too. He could have amassed a dangerous army of them.
=
3rd reason; Alexander being outnumbered is irrelevant.
List of battles where alexander fought a enemy that he was outnumbered against:
1st - Battle of Issus (333 BCE).
2nd - Battle of Gaugamela (331 BCE)
3rd - Jaxartes (329 BCE) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jaxartes
4th ten thousand vs fifteen thousand; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cyropolis
Note - still Alexander end's up winning this battle with very little casualties in his army.
Final Campaign:
"Next Alexander undertook a campaign against the Sydracae & the people known as Mallian's. Both were populous and warlike tribes. They were mobilized in force, 80 thousand infantry, 10,000 horse rider's and 700 chariot's."
Note - that is 90,700 defenders against alexanders army (which at this point can't be greater than 40 thousand). Also alexander's army had low morale and was homesick by this point.
=
9 other examples of armies that were led by OTHER LEADERS that won against armies that had a numerical edge.
7 thousand persians defeat 50 thousand egyptian's at 525 BC:
40 thousand roman's defeated 100,000 armenians; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Tigranocerta
31,600 Romans defeat an army of 300 thousand; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Cyzicus
40,000 men defeated 200 thousand byzantine soldier's:
Romans again beat an army that was double their own size; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chaeronea_(86_BC)
Thirty thousand vs Seventy five thousand yet the winner was the one with less troop's;
Ignoring estimates of the "Modern Consensus" greeks were outnumbered in this battle (according to all other account's of this incident) but still won fairly against the Achaemenid generals (Masistius & Mardonius);
During January 5th 1659 the battle of khajwa, Aurangzeb had over 90 thousand men his rival Shuja had a little over 30 thousand. I agree that aurangzeb won due to a numerical edge but still his army suffered more casualties (they lost 11,000) while Shuja's despite losing still had less casualties in comparison to the larger force (nine thousand).
Thus proven that a larger army does not mean everything.
In the 1550s Humayun [another Moghul emperor];
During this war Humayun's army won despite being numerically inferior.
=
Alexander's father (Philip) himself also had a incident in his life where his army was better in numbers but still failed & was beaten, proving that being outnumbered does not mean u will be defeated in a war same way having more soldiers or a larger army is not a guaranteed advantage.
[Quote]
"Philip's army was more numerous and had siege engines. However, since Perinthus was receiving constant aid from Byzantium and the Achaemenids, the siege was difficult to maintain. Eventually, Philip had found the challenges of successfully besieging the city too much, and so withdrew."
Note - again this also proves the fact greek historian's were UNBIASED cause they admit alexander's father lost, but these days even anime fans like dbz fans refuse to admit the weaknesses of Bardock (father of goku).
Alexander at minimum had the same skill lvl as Philip II so i dont see any reason why the result would be any different against a numerically big army of Dhananand.
=
Not only did Alexander hold greater experience, he was also more versatile and capable. He is unlike any other enemy faced by the Nandas before.
Explanation:
While it is true that all battles the Nanda Army was involved in are not described in detail or elaborated by any text of indian or foreign literature its still believed that every city/kingdom in the upper half of the indian subcontinent submitted to them.
Following order's of the Nanda monarch. So it can be assumed before bowing down they tried to resist or fight, ancient indian armies had chariots, elephants and horses, but were mainly infantry based. So those are the types of armies that the Nanda Army had fought against.
But Alexander's army was the most experienced of its time up until that point, they had fought enemies from greece, armenia, turkey, persia, bactria, sogdia, till afghanistan/paurava. They travelled the furthest distance that any other army of that time period had. And Alexander was highly skilled in organizing his army into VYOOHAS (arrangement phalanxes).
Their has been no evidence of the magadh leaders (Dhananand, Bhadrasaal, Amatya Rakshas) being able to achieve anything similar to him. It is not known which battle they fought but accusations have been made that all they really did was just forcibly extort and tax their own subjects and villagers. So their only achievement is taking money by force from random citizens in their territory.
Its likely that most of the battles which earned the nanda empire a status to the point where all north indian kingdoms (except for the north western part which had taxila, gandara, ashvaka, youdheya, madraka, vahika, porus's land etc) happened in the TIME period of dhanananda's predecessors.
His father Mahapadma Nand & his older brothers (Sukalpa, Bhutapala, Kaivarta, Govishanaka) but not dhanananda himself. They're the ones who built a empire that dhananand lost. One last point is that an empire close to magadh existed in Indian territory, it was either north of magadh or east of it, the name was Gangaridhai Empire.
That same time Dhananand was controlling magadh itself but he had a powerful neighbhor that was his enemy. If he could not get rid of that individual (despite having more soldier's) then how could u expect him to get rid of Alexander who plans tactics in a unseen & unpredictable style?
=
Online argument against a supporter of the Nanda Empire (a fan of history) who is most likely a biased deshbhakt.
Link to conversation; https://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Alexander-the-Great-invade-India/answer/Pranay-Malhotra?comment_id=398564208&comment_type=2
The screenshot was taken during may 16th 2024 (10:29 PM). Meaning he did not reply after even 2 months of time passed by.
=
No comments:
Post a Comment
?